Tag: dairy milk

Be It Bank or Beverage, Choices Matter

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

While we’ll leave fuller explanations for the turmoil financial institutions such as Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and others to those with more expertise, it’s clear that good-old-fashioned poor choices played a role.

It turns out that betting heavily on low-interest government debt when that government is hiking interest rates to fight inflation might not work well; nor is overloading your portfolio on cryptocurrency. And given that propensity for bad bets, it isn’t shocking to see what Silicon Valley Bank had to say about plant and cell-based meat-and-dairy alternatives in this 2019 analysts’ report, which mixed tired tropes of the ills of animal agriculture with boosterism for the future of dairy ripoffs like Ripple and Perfect Day as well as alt-protein companies like Beyond Meat, which “has wowed consumers with its realistic taste and meat-like appearance,” according to the authors.

“At Silicon Valley Bank, we embrace the future of the food industry. We have deep expertise working with foodtech companies and strong ties to the Silicon Valley ecosystem,” the analysts wrote. “If you are working in this space and would like to learn more about SVB’s role, please reach out to chat.”

Of course, we know that that turned out. Beyond Meat stock is now considered a “recipe for disaster” due in part because of its wildly self-inflated expectations. Plant-based beverage sales fell last year. And Silicon Valley Bank? It’s now part of First Citizens Bank & Trust Company after being unloaded by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which took over the institution upon Silicon Valley’s failure.

So yes, perhaps it’s time to “reach out to chat.” About how venture capital investors have thrown good money after bad at products of questionable quality that are more about marketing pitch than actual market need. About how banks seeking a quick buck put depositors at risk with poor investment choices, which include those products. And about how high-quality, proven nutrition, with a product that’s been in demand for millennia, might, unsurprisingly, be the best investment anyone could make – both for consumers and for investors who’d happily have a little less drama in their financial futures.

Dairy, like every other industry, has its challenges, which it’s dedicated to meet. But with record exports and the highest U.S. per-capita consumption since 1959, it’s a safe bet to say its future is bright. That’s what you get with real quality.

You can bank on it.

The Plant-based Lie That Needs to Die

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

There it was, #5 on a New York Times list of “10 Nutrition Myths Experts Wish Would Die.”

“Plant Milk is healthier than dairy milk.”

“It’s just not true,” said Kathleen Merrigan, professor of sustainable food systems at Arizona State University and a deputy secretary of agriculture under President Barack Obama, in the article. But indeed, the myth persists, despite how plant-based beverages have much-lower protein, numerous additives of dubious value, and a lack of uniform quality that should give anyone pause.

It’s also not shocking the misinformation continues. Money talks, and the plant-based sector is well-funded, with plenty of media allies and a ready-made base of support in a vegan community that insists a diet that’s impossibly difficult to follow and prone to malnourishment should be adopted by everyone. It also comes down to the names of the products themselves. If (whatever substance of the moment) is put in front of the word “milk,” then a false impression of nutritional equivalence, if not superiority, is easy to create. If that weren’t the intention, the plant-based beverage peddlers wouldn’t be doing it.

The good news is, nutrition experts are seeing through it – hence endorsement of integrity in dairy labeling from the American Academy of Pediatrics and others.  And consumers are seeing through it, which is why we’re seeing data like this, in which after years of gains, the plant-based tide is starting to recede.

But we still have the problem of the federal government — specifically the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — which often lags behind science and citizens.

Until the FDA enforces its own standards of identity for milk by getting dairy terms right – reserving them for the real thing to distinguish them from the nutritionally deficient concoctions that hide behind milk’s health halo – the lie of “healthy” plant-based “milk” is likely to persist. And as we’ve seen, that lie is proving difficult to eradicate.

For the sake of well-informed consumer choice, and better health and nutrition, it’s important that the government do its job to dispel the lie of plant-based beverages masquerading as “milk.” On that list, labeling integrity is #1.

Shrinking Plant-Based Beverage Sales? Hmmm…

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

Maybe it’s the bad taste they leave. Maybe it’s P.T. Barnum’s adage about how often you can fool people, proving itself again. Or maybe people simply are finally seeing through the marketing spin. We’ll leave the speculation to others.

But the fact is this: Plant-based beverage sales are declining. That’s the data. You hadn’t heard that? You mean that plant-based marketers and their media allies who have long touted that fake milks would lead to the “death of dairy” aren’t telling you that the novelty appears gone and that predictions of Almond Ascendance have come to naught? Sorry about that, perhaps they should have told you sooner. But the markets know, and now you do too, because here it is:

Most Milk Alternative Segments are Losing Volume in 2022

Source: IRI/DMI custom milk database; Total U.S. multi-outlets + c-stores. Volume for 2022, through May 22.

It’s been true for more than a year now. Almonds – down. Soy – down. Coconuts, rice, and “other” – down. And what’s up? Oats, pea, and horchata (which, it should be noted, is sometimes made with actual milk). But those beverages aren’t enough to stave off the widespread sector decline that’s led by almonds, which is ¾ of the category. And those pockets of isolated growth come at the expense of other plant-based beverages, cannibalizing the sector instead of growing it.

So as the FDA contemplates guidance on labeling, and proven mis-informers try to argue that their place in the market is fore-ordained – and everyone else should just go along with their blatant mislabeling – remember: Real milk is the superior product – in nutrition, taste, functionality and naturalness – and  the highly processed plant-based food propagandists know it. Maybe that’s why you haven’t been hearing much lately about how plant-based beverages are on the rise at dairy’s expense. Because they aren’t rising at dairy’s expense. In fact, they’re not even on the rise.

FDA’s Proven It Can Do Its Job On Fake Milk – It Can Do It Again

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

With FDA guidance expected on the proper labeling of plant-based milk alternatives sometime this summer, it’s worth noting – even if seemingly for the millionth time – that this isn’t a tough call, no matter what plant-based lobbyists would tell you.

The FDA’s own standards define milk as an animal product. The agency charged with protecting the public health should, you know, protect the public health from well-documented consumer confusion over nutritional content. And if anyone tells you that it’s just too difficult for FDA to do that – that straw-grasping arguments about First Amendment speech protections and the proliferation of plant-based beverages are just too overwhelming for the agency to do its own job – remember this: FDA has already enforced labeling integrity. Multiple times.

For the record: Before it decided that plant-based beverages were just too numerous (or litigious, perhaps?) to do anything about, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration used to stand up to its own mission. On Jan. 23, 1981, FDA warned a soy-product manufacturer that “The statement ‘soybean milk’ has not been sanctioned as an acceptable identity statement for such a mixture as water, soybean, wheat and seaweed by this agency,” adding that there is not “a clear and uniform understanding of what ‘soybean milk’ is in this country.”

The 1980s were a feisty time for fighting food fakes. On Sept. 29, 1983, FDA wrote a research institute in Singapore to say “we have not recognized the term ‘soy milk’ as a common or usual name or appropriately descriptive term for statements of identity or ingredient designations of any food. As a result, we would object to any soy product entering this country that was labeled as ‘soy milk.’” A similar letter to South Korea in 1985 stated, “The names ‘soymilk’ and ‘vegetable milk’ are not acceptable identity statements for these products. The product may be called ‘soy drink’ or ‘soy beverage.’”

Chalk up dairy-label integrity as another reason to be nostalgic for Ronald Reagan. But before you dismiss seemingly ancient agency actions as part of a now-unrelatable era of high inflation, disputes over what’s taught in schools, and tensions with Russia (um, wait a second), note FDA’s letter of June 29, 2011. In that one, the agency told a sports-drink manufacturer that its “Muscle Milk” product line was misleading because its products “do not conform to the standard of identity for milk.”

Fake-milk enforcement isn’t merely a relic of Reagan’s FDA. It was part of President Barack Obama’s as well. But of course, consumers all know that “Muscle Milk” isn’t really made of muscles – right? According to FDA’s own actions, that’s not enough. Milk ain’t muscles, even though it builds them. It also ain’t almonds, or oats, or soy, or …

You get the picture. So why doesn’t FDA? Given the agency’s recent track record, it’s fair to say its years of inaction creates nervousness over what it might do next. Any attempt to justify previous non-enforcement by saying “but we haven’t been enforcing it” is flat-out wrong – the record shows it. And any argument that says “time has established a new usage while we’ve done nothing” isn’t just untrue, it insults the FDA officials who did stand up for integrity.

FDA could use some of that these days. Consumers could use some too. While we’re at it, the whole world could use a big dose of integrity (along with copious quantities of high-nutrition, true dairy products). And it’s not impossible. We’ve seen it before. Maybe someday — maybe soon – we can see it again.

All Too Quiet on the Fake-Dairy Front

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

The news has been quiet on the fake-dairy front. Too quiet.

To update on the latest from FDA, which regulates food-product labeling: FDA is saying it will offer guidance on the labeling of plant-based milk alternatives by June. But indications of what that may actually mean are sparse, even though the agency’s own course of action – should they choose to follow their own rules — is clear.

A new rule on yogurt labels put into effect in July is a helpful, and hopeful, sign. The rule robustly defends standards of identity that ensure consumers purchase products that meet their expectations. As dairy farmers, and consumers, have always maintained, how a food is made, and where it comes from, matters. FDA’s recognition of that is a big win for labeling integrity, one we’re hoping is reflected in next year’s guidance.

But beyond that, nada from an agency that hasn’t inspired confidence via its 40 years of neglect on this issue. The quiet isn’t just unusual, it appears to be willful. In the past year, we at the National Milk Producers Federation have sent two letters – one last October, and another last month, to the FDA’s ombudsman, the office within the agency that members of FDA-regulated industries go to when they experience problems with the regulatory process.

Other than an acknowledgment of receipt of the first letter, again, nothing. And that’s strange, because, as we note in our second letter, if the FDA uses its guidance next June to do anything other than defend its own standards:

We caution FDA that rewriting an existing rule with guidance would be a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA requires regulatory changes to be made using notice and comment rulemaking which a guidance cannot overrule. In addition, some federal courts are no longer bowing to an agency’s use of enforcement discretion when such discretion is broad and long-term and amounts to a de-facto re-write of existing rules.

And that makes us wonder what FDA is worried about. With food-labeling litigation becoming ever-more sophisticated and time-consuming, the temptation for a federal agency to simply throw up its hands on a hot-button issue would be high. We also know the lack of a new commissioner can slow down decision-making. And it’s not as if the agency isn’t trying to catch up on other pressing matters.

But that’s not serving the interest of the consuming public, which FDA is charged to do. And this issue isn’t a heavy lift – once again, as the FDA states, “Milk is the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows.” That’s the standard. Full stop.

And without that respect for standards – the same respect showed in the yogurt rule – and the courage required to enforce them, a Wild West approach to labeling predominates. And the problem of consumers being misled into incorrect notions of nutritional equivalence by bad-faith labeling – one that’s literally contributed to child malnutrition — only worsens.

We’re hoping to hear back soon.

Bipartisan DAIRY PRIDE Act May Further FDA Enforcement Progress

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

Representatives Peter Welch (D-VT) and Mike Simpson (R-ID) and Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and James Risch (R-ID) on April 22 reintroduced the bipartisan DAIRY PRIDE Act. The bill would bring clear, accurate labeling information for consumers and end harmful mislabeling of dairy foods by peddlers of plant-based products by requiring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enforce its own existing standards of identity on imitation dairy products after decades of inaction.

NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern thanked Welch and Simpson and Baldwin and Risch for reintroducing the measure and their ongoing leadership working to ensure FDA does its job. NMPF has been working for decades for FDA to enforce dairy standards of identity, as plant-based imitators have a long history of flouting these labeling laws to piggyback on dairy’s good name and reputation and benefiting from the “halo of health” associated with nutritious, healthy dairy products.

“FDA is responsible for the integrity and safety of our nation’s food, medicine, and medical devices, and it’s crucial that it enforce its own standards and requirements,” Mulhern said. “Without enforcement, we are left open to the potential for questionable products, deceptive practices, and, in cases such as mislabeled plant-based products that masquerade as having nutritional benefits similar to dairy’s, negative effects to our health.”

Medical groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics are voicing concerns over the harm lack of enforcement is having on public health as misinformed consumers unintentionally choose less nutritious products for themselves and their families.

Congress has also shown a growing concern for FDA’s failure to enforce. The House held a hearing in January 2020 on the agency’s lack of enforcement, during which NMPF Executive Vice President Tom Balmer testified on the need to enforce dairy standards of identity. In December 2020 Congress included in the report accompanying the FDA funding bill for FY 2021 a statement of concern and directive to FDA regarding enforcing standards of identity for dairy products.

NMPF will continue working on FDA enforcement, building on this progress made in 2020, with Mulhern seeing the reintroduction of the DAIRY PRIDE Act as “helping NMPF and consumers continue to move forward toward solving this critical public health and fairness issue.”

NMPF Supports Labeling Integrity Through DAIRY PRIDE Act

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) commended Representatives Peter Welch (D-VT) and Mike Simpson (R-ID) and Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and James Risch (R-ID) today for reintroducing the DAIRY PRIDE Act, a bill that would bring clear, accurate labeling information for consumers and end harmful mislabeling of dairy foods by peddlers of plant-based products. The legislation requires the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enforce its own existing standards of identity on imitation dairy products after decades of inaction.

The DAIRY PRIDE Act directs FDA to follow its own rules and establish an agency approach for enforcement of existing dairy standards of identity.

“NMPF thanks Representatives Welch and Simpson and Senators Baldwin and Risch for reintroducing the bipartisan DAIRY PRIDE Act in both the House and Senate, yet one more example of their ongoing leadership working to ensure FDA does its job,” said Jim Mulhern, NMPF president and CEO. “FDA is responsible for the integrity and safety of our nation’s food, medicine, and medical devices, and it’s crucial that it enforce its own standards and requirements. Without enforcement, we are left open to the potential for questionable products, deceptive practices, and, in cases such as mislabeled plant-based products that masquerade as having nutritional benefits similar to dairy’s, negative effects to our health.”

Standards of identity legally define what constitutes a specific food or food product, requiring the food product to carry certain qualities. When enforced, these legal standards protect consumers by helping to ensure the integrity of their food. Standards also create a common understanding of what a food product is, helping consumers make informed choices.

FDA’s lack of enforcement of dairy standards of identity has led to consumer misunderstanding of the nutrients – or lack thereof – in imitation dairy products. An IPSOS survey conducted in 2018, for example, found that 73% of consumers surveyed believe that almond-based beverages have as much or more protein per serving than milk. In reality, milk has up to eight times as much protein. A follow-up survey found that roughly 50 percent of consumers mistakenly believe that the main ingredient in a plant-based beverage is the plant itself. Such drinks are actually mostly flavored water.

Medical groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics are voicing concerns over the harm this confusion is having on public health as misinformed consumers unintentionally choose less nutritious products for themselves and their families.

Congress has also shown a growing concern for FDA’s failure to enforce. In early 2020, the House held a hearing on the agency’s lack of enforcement. Then late last year Congress included in the report accompanying the FDA funding bill for FY 2021 a statement of concern and directive to FDA regarding enforcing dairy standards of identity.

“The reintroduction of the DAIRY PRIDE Act helps NMPF and consumers continue to move forward toward solving this critical public health and fairness issue,” Mulhern said.

More on NMPF’s efforts on this issue, including survey data and statements from medical professionals, can be found here.

Dairy — Tough to Live Without It

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

The misguided, fringe argument that dairy isn’t important to human diets would be laughable if it weren’t dangerous. Is it possible to live without dairy? It’s possible to live without many things – sunlight, for example — but that doesn’t make it healthy, wise or preferable.

While a dairy-free life is possible, it isn’t wise – unless, maybe, you’re severely allergic or perhaps work in sales for a nutritional supplement company. A few facts:

  • Scientific studies have linked dairy consumption to numerous health benefits, including reduced inflammation, improved digestive health and healthy immune systems.
  • According to last year’s final scientific advisory report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which sets the Dietary Guidelines for Americans every five years, 88 percent of Americans have insufficient dairy in their diets.
  • Dairy is especially important to pregnant women as a source of iodine — as well as for infants and toddlers, who beginning at six months can benefit from yogurt and cheese, and at 12 months gain nutrition from dairy milk.
  • The Advisory Committee also recommended dairy for consumption within all three healthy eating patterns featured in its report: the Healthy U.S. style eating pattern, the Healthy Vegetarian Style pattern and the Healthy-Mediterranean pattern.
  • More on eating patterns. Healthy eating patterns that include dairy foods are linked to reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.
  • And what about dairy’s inclusion in the Healthy Vegetarian pattern? Why is it vegetarian, and not vegan? Because when you get rid of dairy, you need supplements to make up for the lost nutrition. Dairy foods are often recommended as part of plant-based diets because they contain high-quality proteins and under-consumed nutrients like calcium, vitamins D and B12.
  • Those aren’t the only under-consumed nutrients milk provides. Others include potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamin A.
  • In total, dairy packs in 13 essential nutrients. For a reference list, see the infographic below, suitable for printing and framing.
  • Dairy isn’t only essential – it’s also affordable. According to recent retail data, a gallon of conventional milk cost 56 percent less than a plant-based beverage, while yogurt was 59 percent less expensive than its imitators – which are nutritionally inferior anyway.
  • Speaking of plant-based beverages. Their attempts to trick consumers into believing they’re nutritional equivalents to dairy has tragic consequences, as detailed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, members of whom have observed child malnourishment caused by reliance on plant-based imitators by parents who mistakenly thought, because of a lack of labeling integrity, that they were getting dairy’s unique nutrient package. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans also cautions against plant-based substitution, noting that most plant-based beverages lack nutritional equivalence.
  • Following on that: Simplistic views of plant- versus animal-sourced foods may have unintended consequences for human health. Removing animal-sourced products from diets would force, much of the world’s population to rely on supplements to make up for nutritional shortfalls.
  • And that all leads into a final point: Dairy’s sustainability. By providing nutrition efficiently through environmentally sustainable practices, dairy is a part of the long-term solution to planet health as well as human health. Skeptics can look to, among many other things, the sector’s Net Zero Initiative and its sustainability goals, along with other literature, such as modeling published in the Journal of Dairy Science that assessed the impacts of completely removing dairy cows from the U.S. and removing dairy from all American diets. The results showed a lack of presumed environmental benefits, but a notable threat to human health.

Dairy’s unique nutrient package is hard to replace. It’s one of the most affordable and accessible nutrient sources, including many that are critically needed and under-consumed in human diets. You can live without it – but why on Earth would you want to? Maybe because you’re into supplement pills, or maybe you just like living a less-nutritious lifestyle, or maybe you’re just ill-informed.  We can’t help you with the first two, but as always, we’re happy to educate. Stay safe, and stay nourished.

Infographic of 13 ways milk can help your body